COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. RAVINDRA AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of ten appeals, filed by the Revenue. Appeal Nos. E/2830 -31/98 -D had been filed against the order in appeal Nos. 195 and 196/CE/K -H/98, dated 14 -7 -1998 while appeal Nos. E/2410 to 2415/98 -D had been filed against the order in appeal Nos. 159 to 164/CE/K -H/98, dated 21 -5 -1998 all passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in favour of the respondents M/s. Ravindra and Co. Similarly, Appeal Nos. E/2826 -2827/98 -D have been filed by the Revenue against the common order in appeal Nos. 208 and 209/CE/K -II/98 issued on 30 -7 -1998 in favour of M/s. Surendra Enterprises, respondents. In all these appeals through the impugned orders the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed the orders in original of the Assistant Commissioner confirming duty demand of different amounts as detailed in those orders, by classifying the tobacco products of the respondents under sub -heading 2404.41 of the CETA. Since in all these appeals common issue regarding classification of tobacco branded as "Hari Chhap and Bandar Dholak Chhap" prepared by the respondents and consequential demand for duty, is involved, these are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE respondents are dealing in the preparation and sale of branded chewing tobacco known as "Hari Chhap and Bandar Chhap". They are holding the Central Excise registration licence. They filed classification lists classifying their product under sub -heading 2401.00 of the CETA and during the period in question from 29 -8 -1992 to 15 -3 -1995, respondents M/s. Ravindra and Co. cleared the goods under that sub -heading which carried nil rate of duty at that time. The Assistant Commissioner initially vide order dated 9 -10 -1990 also accepted their classification under sub -heading 2401.00 of the CETA, but subsequently doubt arose in his mind about the classification and he directed the Range Superintendent to allow clearances under provisional assessment against bond and to draw representative samples. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner classified their goods as manufactured tobacco under subheading 2404.41 of the CETA vide order dated 6 -12 -1990, but his that order was quashed by the Allahabad High Court at the instance of the respondents and fresh classification was ordered to be made. The Assistant Commissioner, however, again classified tobacco product of the respondents vide order dated 31 -12 -1991 under sub -heading 2404.41 of the CETA. That order was challenged by them firstly in the Allahabad High Court and thereafter before the Commissioner (Appeals) as the High Court directed them to avail alternate remedy. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the said order of the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 14 -3 -1996. The show cause notices were accordingly issued to the respondents proposing duty demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules on the clearance of tobacco made by them during the period in question. They contested the correctness of those show cause notices by alleging that their goods were classifiable under sub -heading 2401.00 of the CETA being unmanufactured tobacco. But the Assistant Collector did not accept their version and confirmed the demands on the ground that the classification issue stood already decided by his earlier order dated 31 -12 -1991 under sub -heading 2404.41 of the CETA.

(3.) SIMILARLY , the respondents M/s. Surendra Enterprises filed classification lists, classifying their tobacco under sub -heading 2401.00 and they were issued show cause notices. They contested those notices on the same grounds on which their correspondents contested. But the Assistant Commissioner did not accept their pleas and confirmed duty demand on them by classifying their goods under sub -heading 2404.41 of CETA for the period in dispute. All those orders of the Assistant Commissioner were challenged by both the respondents in appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who reversed the same through the impugned orders by classifying their goods under sub -heading 2401.00 of the CETA as unmanufactured tobacco, and which carried nil rate of duty during the period in question.